decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I have (re)read those instructions | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SSO only applies to computer programs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT
The judge didn't in favour of Google on the SSO of the documentation because
there is no such concept in copyright law regarding literary works that are not
computer programs. SSO is a concept used to analyze the protectable non-literal
elements of computer programs only.

You quoted it yourself:

"you do not need to be concerned with structure, sequence, and
organization, a concept that applies only to the compilable code part of the
case."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I have (re)read those instructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT
(Anonymous OP)
I'll be honest they annoyed me the first time

this is just how i read it, IANAL, etc, I don't think either of us are wrong,
just need to be clear what's being discussed....

P refers to page numbers in jury instructions, whch it seems there are two of, I
will express them as higher/lower (fast/slow)
I instruction/information on that page
=random speculation
Q from special verdict form


Starting with the Jury Instructions

P16/9
I:1. Literary works like books, periodicals and, of particular interest here,
operating manuals;
I:5. Computer programs, also of particular interest here.

=Books & Source Code

I: Another statutory limitation on scope is that copyright never protects any
concept.

P 19/11
I: The “compilable code” does not include the English-language comments you have
heard about
=all the source code
I: “API documentation” includes all content
=all the books (The Big Fat Manual)


P 20/12
I: Google agrees names, line-by-line are different
I: not disputed by Oracle, contends that Google SSO 37 API packages,
individually and collectively
I: Google concedes use, claims, SSO not protected of fair use
I: It is my job to decide protection on SSO. I will not be able to decide this
question until after your verdict.
I: For purposes of your deliberations, you must assume that the copyrights do
cover the structure, sequence and organization of the code.

= copyright protects SSO aswell, maybe
= Jury decides whether the SSO(only) has been copied into android from Java2SE
= also looks like a double bite at the cherry (individually and collectively)


P21/12
I: I have, however, decided that the copyrights do not cover the names given to
files or packages because under the law, names cannot be copyrighted.

= Judges Obsession with names, pointing them out to the jury, asking witness to
circle them
= just can't let go of that one, even if Oracle do try to pull them back in
= Jury decides copy y/n fair use y: maybe no decision is required,
= Judge decides protection if jury decides copying
= Judge maybe decides anyway.

P22/13
I: API Documentation (jury) do not need be concerned with SSO only applies to
the code
= Google lost SSO on the book, the big fat manual
= Jury decides on documentation for direct copying


P23/13
I: aside from API, smattering of direct copying
I: Google concedes de minimis

P26/14
I:In this trial, you should use
I: substantial similarity test for all (code)...
I: except API documentation use the virtual identity test.
==this annoys me immensley, substantial similarity? for code?
==but it is only the SSO, and that's only thin, so surely the standard
== is virtual identical?

P31/16
I: Q1. “work as a whole” all of the compilable code in all of the API packages
I: (not just the 37) in the registered work. This excludes the virtual
machine
= All of the source code for Java 2SE (1.4 & 1.5), 160? 200+? how many
packages?
= excludes JVM, Dalvik is in the clear, you aren't getting derivative out of
this

I: Q2. A & B "work as a whole” the API compilable code for each API
I: Q2. C & D "work as a whole” all of API documentation for each API
I: Q3 “work as a whole” is the compilable code
I: for the individual files
I: except for the last two files (includes) comments in the same file.

= Q1 and Q2 address collectively and individually accusation

SO now turn to the special verdict form

Q1 A The SSO of the 37 APIs (all the Source code minus comments)
=<all compilable code><in all of J2SE>
=<As to the SSO><Names not included>
=<substantially similar><for all of the 37 overlap>
=<was it copied?>
=<Copied/Fair use>

P 29/15
I: 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole;

=was it even copied in the first place?
=names aren't in, and where they appear (as you discern the SSO amongst the
code) is a tiny
=part of all the implementation code in the files
=the source code will be in <some files>.java contained in e.g
<somewhere>/java/nio/channels
=and maybe some sub-directories

Q2 A The SSO of the 37 APIs (Source code for each package -comments)
=<all compilable code><in each of the listed packages>
=<As to the SSO><Names not included>
=<substantially similar><for each package>
=<Copied/Fair use>


= SO for Oracle to prevail, and Google to lose
= a) yes it was copied
= b) it isn't fair use
= c) and most importantly, the judge decides that it is protected
= personally I think he's decided from the way he is helping the jury round his
thinking
=

Q2 C The copying of the documentation (not the SSO)
=<documentation><in each package>
=<virtually identical>
= not much more needs to be said


Q3....
=Here have some scratchings

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )